Tamron 24-70/2-8 VC

[stenrasmussen]

Just acquired this lens (for an upcoming job really).
In the process of familiarising myself with it I am out and about Stavanger in low light situation to learn its behavior.
So far I am pretty pleased. Towards the Nikkor 24-70 (non-VR) it looses out in AF speed only.
Here's a shot towards Stavanger harbour.
EXIF: 24mm, f/5.0, 0.6s, ISO 800. Df and lens tripoded on my Sirui R4203/Sunwayfoto XB-52.

[Erik Lund]

Looks really good

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I did a comparison test of 24-70/2.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron that was published in a leading Norwegian photo magazine a few months ago. Suffice it to say that prices varied more between these lenses than did their quality under actual field use. As each had areas in which it excelled, declaring an outright "winner" is tricky and indeed a rather futile exercise, as the individual user preferences and requirements must be factored into the overall equation. One probably could live quite happily with whichever of these lenses that fitted your camera without totally emptying your wallet. If peak AF performance should be the decisive criterion, go with the native lens for your camera system, however.

(and yes, Sten's Tamron VC was included in these tests)

[Roland Vink]

According to LensRentals, the new Nikkor 24-70VR is optimised for even sharpness across the entire frame, while the others are sharper centrally but softer at the edges.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I hope to be able to verify that as soon as I get my review sample of the new 24-70 Nikkor.

[pluton]

I have shot brief tripod-mounted tests of the Tamron for a friend.  Pictures were very good, the smoothness of the zoom and focus controls weren't quite as nice as my old Nikon 24-70 Mk1.

[gwh]

I did a comparison test of 24-70/2.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron that was published in a leading Norwegian photo magazine a few months ago. Suffice it to say that prices varied more between these lenses than did their quality under actual field use. As each had areas in which it excelled, declaring an outright "winner" is tricky and indeed a rather futile exercise, as the individual user preferences and requirements must be factored into the overall equation. One probably could live quite happily with whichever of these lenses that fitted your camera without totally emptying your wallet. If peak AF performance should be the decisive criterion, go with the native lens for your camera system, however.

(and yes, Sten's Tamron VC was included in these tests)

For a primary indoor shooter in sportshall for kids basketball and handball, would the Tamron (or another lens) be a good choice for shooting primarliy at f2.8?
Body is d700, and i use a 35-70 (which i find too long on the short end) and a 80-200 af-s for shooting indoors.
Budget is limited, so if a used sigma is a good choice, i will go with that. I have read though, that at f2.8 t gets progressivily worse towrards the long end, and that is a no-go for me.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I think you can choose any of the currently existing 24-70 lenses without too much trepidation. Their quality differences do not reflect the respective prices. All of them have their strong and weak points, though, and you cannot opt for a given advantage without bringing with you a disadvantage from another area.

To make this more understandable: on a character scale 0-100, these lenses cluster in the range 70-75. Just get one that fits your budget.

[Wannabebetter]

Given that they're all equally boorish in character -- and not likely to win over too many parents on prom night (American readers, take note) nor impress greatly any discerning academic review board or potential employer -- did the lens evaluations take into consideration mechanical tolerances, build quality, materials etc?

I'm not entirely clear on the forum rules (yes, I read them) regarding my next query, however is it permissible for you to say which Norwegian magazine published the lens evaluation?